








.;.*•"-. 







% 









5^^ "^^ O 











"^b 




THE WAR WITH MEXICO. 



SPEECH 



V^ 



HON. JOHN A. DIX, OF NEW YORK, 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 26, 1848, 

On the Bill reported from the Committee on Military Affairs to raise, for a limited time, 

an additional Military Force. jj, 

^ -^^^ 



Mr. DIX said : Mr. President, it was my wish 
to address the Senate on the resohitions offered by 
the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun,] 
and not on this bill. 1 should have preferred to do 
so, because I am always unwilling to delay action 
on any measure relating to the war, and because 
the resolutions afford a wider field for inquiry and 
discussion. But as the debate has become general, 
and extended to almost every topic that can well 
be introduced under either, the force of the consid- 
erations by which I have been influenced, has be- 
come so weakened, that I have not thought it neces- 
sary to defer longer what I wish to say. 

Two leading questions divide and agitate the 
public mind in respect to the future conduct of the 
war with Mexico. The first of these questions is. 
Shall we withdraw our forces from the Mexican 
territory, and leave the subject of indemnity for 
injuries and the adjustment of a boundary be- 
tween the two Republics to future negotiation, re- 
lying on a magnanimous course of conduct on our 
part to produce a corresponding feeling on the part 
of Mexico ? There are other propositions, subor- 
dinate to this, which may be considered as parts 
of the same general scheme of policy, such as that 
of withdrawing from the Mexican capital and the 
interior districts, and assuming an exterior line of 
occupation. I shall apply to all these propositions 
the same arguments; and if I were to undertake to 
distinguish between them, I am not sure that I 
should make any difference in the force of the ap- 
pUcation. For whether we withdraw from Mex- 
ico altogether, or take a defensive line which shall 
include all the territory we intend to hold perma- 
nently as indemnity, the consequences to result 
from it, so far as they affect the question of peace, 
would, it appears to me, be the same. 

The second question is. Shall we retain the 
possession of the territory we have acquired until 
Mexico shall consent to make a treaty of peace 
which shall provide ample compensation for the 
wrongs of which we complain, and settle to our 
satisfaction the boundary in dispute? 

Regarding these questions as involving the per- 
manent welfare of the country, I have considered 
them with the greatest solicitude; and though 
never more profoundly impressed with a sense of 
the responsibility which belongs to the solution 
of problems of such magnitude and difiiculty, my 

Fruited at the Congressionai Globe Ofiice^ 



reflections have, nevertheless, led me to a clear 
and settled conviction as to the course which just- 
ice and policy seem to indicate and demand. The 
first question, in itself of the highest importance, 
has been answered affirmatively on this floor; and 
it derives additional interest from the fact, that it 
has also been answered in the affirmative by a 
statesman, now retired from the busy scenes of 
political life, who, from his talents, experience, 
and public services, justly commands the respect 
of his countrymen, and whose opinions on any 
subject are entitled to be weigb.ed with candor and 
deliberation. I have endeavored to attribute to 
his opinions, and to those of others who coincide 
with him wholly or in part, all the importance 
which belongs to them, and to consider them with 
the deference due to the distinguished sources 
from which they emanate. I believe I have done 
so; and yet I have, after the fullest reflection, 
come to conclusions totally different from theirs. 
I believe it would be in the highest degree unjust 
to ourselves, possessing, as we do, well-founded 
claims on Mexico, to withdraw our forces from 
her territory altogether, and exceedingly unwise, 
as a matter of policy, looking to the future politi- 
cal relations of the two countries, to withdraw 
from it partially, and assume a line of defence, 
without a treaty of peace. On the contrary, I am 
in favor of retaining possession, for the present, 
of all we have acquired, not as a permanent con- 
quest, but as the most effective means of bringing 
about, what all most earnestly desire, a restora- 
tion of peace; and I will, with the indulgence of 
the Senate, proceed to state, with as much brerity 
as the magnitude of the subject admits, my objec- 
tions to the course suggested by the first question, 
and my reasons in favor of the course suggested 
by the other. 

I desire, at the outset, to state this proposition, 
to the truth of which, I think, all will yield their 
assent: that no policy which does not carry with 
it a reasonable assurance of healing the dissensions 
dividing the two countries, and of restoring, per- 
manently, amicable relations between them, ought 
to receive our support. . We may differ in opinion, 
and, perhaps, hopelessly, as to the measures best 
calculated to produce this result; but if it were pos- 
sible for us to come to an agreement in respect 
to them, the propriety of their adoption could 






scarcely admit of controversy. This proposition [period exceeding fifteen thousand men, and against 

forces from three to five times more numerous than 
those actually eno;,iged on our side, in every conflict 
since tiie fall of Vera Cruz. 

I had occasion, on presenting some army peti- 
tions a few weeks ago, to refer to the brilliant suc- 
cesses by which these acquisitions were made; and 
I will not trespass on the attention of the Senate 
by repeating what I said at that time.* But I can- 
not forbear to say, that there is a moral in the con- 
test, the effect of which is not likely to be lost on 
ourselves or others. At the call of their country 
our people have literally rushed to arms. The 
emulation has been to be received into the service, 
not to be excused from it. Individuals from the 
plough, the counting-house, the law-office, and the 
workshop, have taken the field, braving inclement 
seasons and inhospitable climates without a mur- 
mur; and, though wholly unused to arms, with- 
standing the most destructive fire, and storming 
batteries at the point of the bayonet with the cool- 
ness, intrepidity, and spirit of veterans. J believe 
I may safely say, there has been no psraUel to 
these achievements by undisciplined fortes since 
the French revolution. I am not sure that his- 
tory can furnish a parallel. As to the regular 



being conceded, as I think it will be, it follows, that 
if the measure proposed — to witlidraw our forces 
from Mexico — be not calculated to bring about a 
speedy and permanent peace; but, on the contrary, 
if it be rather calculated to open a field of domestic 
dissension, and possibly of external interference, 
in that distracted country, to be followed, in all 
probability, by a renewal of active hostilities with 
ns, and under circumstances to make us feel se- 
verely the loss of the advantage which we have 
gained, and which it is proposed voluntarily to 
surrender, — then, it appears to me, it can present 
no claim to our favorable consideration. I shall 
endeavor to shov/, before I sit down, that the pol- 
icy referred to is exposed to all these dangers and 
evils. 

I do not propose to enter into an examination 
of the origin of the war. From the moment the 
collision took place between our forces and those 
of Mexico on the Rio Grande, I considered all hope 
of an accommodation, without a full trial of strength 
in the field, to be out of the question. 1 believed 
the peculiar character of the Mexicans would ren- 
der any such hope illusive. Whether that colli- 
sion was produced in any degree by our own mis- 



takes, or whether the war itself was brought about ' army, we always expect it to be gallant and heroic, 
by the manner in which Texas was annexed to j and we are never disappointed. The whole con- 
the Union, are questions I do not propose to dis- I duct of the war in the field has exhiliited ihe 
cuss now; and if it were not too late^ I would sub- highest evidence of our military capacity. It con- 
mit whether the discussion could serve any other 
purpose but to exhibit divided councils to our ad- 
versary, and to inspire him with the hope of ob- 
taining more favorable terms of peace by protracting 
his resistance. No one can be less disposed than 
myself to abridge, in any degree, the legitinaate 
boundaries of discussion. But I am not disposed 
to enter into such an investigation now. The 
Hrgent concern is to know, not how the war origi- 
nated, not who is responsible for it, but in what 
manner it can be brought to a speedy and honor- 
able termination; whether, as some suppose, we 
ought to retire from the field, or whether, as ap- 
pears to me, the only hope of an accommodation 
lies in a firm and determined maintenance of our 
position. 

The probable consequences of an abandonment 
of the advantages we have gained may be better un- 
derstood by seeing what those advantages are. I 
speak in a military point of view. While address- 
ing the Senate in February la.st on an army bi" 



♦Tlie reference alliuled to is contained in tli* Ibliowing 
extract: 

" I will not detain the Senate !)yf»iiteifng into any detailed 
review of these, events wilii a view to tnl'oice the appeal 
contained in the petition on the allt-ntion. I liope,liowever, 
I uiaj' be indulged in saying, in ju~lice to tho^e wlio borfi a 
part in them, tliat the first conqacst of Mexico cannot, as it 
appaarsto uie, be compared witli the second, (^iUier as to tlie 
obstacles overcome, or as to the relative streiigtli of the in- 
vaders. Ths triumphs of Cortcz wi-re achieved by policy 
and l)y superiority in discipline and in the implements of 
warfare. The use of fire-arms, until then unknown to the 
inhabitants of Mexico, was sntficient in itseif to nnilin his 
force, small as it was, irresistible. In the eyes of tliat sim- 
ple and superstitious pco|ile he seemed armed with super- 
Imman power. Other circumstances combined to facilitate 
his success. The native tribes, by whom the country was 
possessed, were distinct communities, not always aeknow)- 
edging the same head, and often divided anion;; themselves 
by implacable hostility and resentmcuits. Cortez, by his 
consummate prudetice and art, turned these dissensions to 
his own account ; he li}red the parties to them into hi» own 
service, and when he presented himself at the gates of the 
city of Mexico, he was at the head of four thousand of the 
m'ost warlike of the natives, as auxiliaries to the band of 

.Mg u.c oc^Muic .1. xcu.ua, yKw^^. uu a,i ai.uy urn sp^nia,-,),, with which he commenced his march from Vera 

then under consideration, I had occasion to statt, [ cruz. Thus his early successes vvere as much the triumph 

that the whole of northern Mexico as far south as 

the mouth of the Rio Grande and the 26th parallel 
•of latitude was virtually in our possession, com- 

.prehending about two-thirds of the territory of that 

republic, and about one-tenth of its inhabitants. 

Our acquisitions have since been augmented by the 

;reduction of Vera Cruz and the Castle of San Juan 



of policy as of arms. General Scott, and the gallant band 
he led, had no such advantages. The whole population of 
the country, from Vera Cruz to Mexico, was united as one 
man against htm. and animated by the frercest animosity. 
He was ojiposed by military forces armed like his own, 
often betti^r disciplined, occupying positions chosen by them- 
selves, strong by nature, and fortified according to the 
strictest rules of art. These obstaeles were overcome by 
, his skill as a tactician, aided by a corps of officers unsur- 
de Ulua, the ca]:iture of Jalapa, Perote,and Puebia, ] passed for their knowledse of the art of attack and defence, 
the surrender of the city of Mexico, and the occu- i and by thrt indomitable courage of their followers. With 
pation of the three States of Vera Cruz, Puebia, i I'^lf l.is force left on the b.-ittle field or in the hospital, and 
r VnT • • 1 1 n- 1 1 1^ ,. ' With less than SIX thousand men, after a series of desperate 

and Mexico, with nearly two millions and a half of , contests, he took possession of the city of Mexico, contain- 
souls. It is true, our forces have not overrun every | ing nearly two hundred thousand inhabitants, and defended 
portion of the territory of those States; but their ! I^.v tlie remnant of an army of more than thirty thousand 
rliipftnwn^ bnvp hppn rediiVed the milifarv fnrcpc! 1 s^'f"''^'''^'- I confess I know nothing in modern warfare which 
chiet towns nave ueen reaucea, me military to ces exceeds in brilliancy the movements of the American army 
which defended them captured or dispersed, their | from the Gulf to the city of Mexico. I shall not attempt to 
civil authorities superseded, their capital occupied, speak of them in the language ofeulogium. Tiiey are nota 
and the whole machinery of government within the ' ^ "^'''"'L''"'', -""^'^ conunent. Like the achievemerita of 
1 o. . • . n . r 1 . u J i General Taylor and his brave men on the Rio Grande, at 

conquered States virtually transferred to our hands. Monterey and Buena Vista, the highest and most appropriate 
All this has been achieved with an army at no one ' prairc is contained in the i,implcsi statement of facts.-' 



firms an opinion I have always held — thatn soldier 
is formidable in ratio of the importance he pos- 

"-- sesses in tlie order of the political system of which 
,he is a part. It establishes another position of 
/vjtal importance to us: that, under the protection 
.of oitr miliiia system, the country may, at the 

IMcrmination of every contest, lay aside the more 
'massive and burdensome parts of its armor, and 
become prepared, with energies renewed by that 
very capacity, for succeeding scenes of danger. 

Mr. President, the political condition of IMexico 
has been gradually approaching a dissolution of 
all responsible government, and of the civil order, 
which constitutes her an independent state. Th.is 
lamentable situation is not the fruit alone of our 
military successes. The factions, by which that 
country has been distracted, each in turn gaining 
and maintaining a temporary ascendency, and 
often by brute force, lie at the foundation of the 
social and political disorder which has reigned 
there for the last twenty years. To most of the 
abuses of the old colonial system of Spain, she has 
superadded the evils of an unstable and irrespons- 
ible government. The military bodies, wliich 
have been the instruments of those who have thus 
in succession gained a brief and precarious control 
over her affairs, though dispersed, still exist, ready 
to be re-united and to renew the anarchy which 
we have superseded, [uv th: time being, by ■•: rr.ili- 
tary goveriunent: and thio brings me I o the first 
great objection to the proposition of withdrawing 
our armies from the field. 

I have already said that no policy can deserve 
our support v.liich does not hold out the promise 
of a durable peace. Nothing seems to me more 
unlikely to secure so desirable a result, than an 
abandonment of Mexico by us at the present mo- 
ment without a treaty, leaving behind a strong 
feeling of animosity towards us, with party divis- 
ions as strongly marked, and political animosities 
as rancorous, perhaps, as they have been at any 
former period. Even when her capital had fallen, 
humbled and powerless as she was, party leaders, 
instead of consulting for the common good, were 
seen strug:gling with each other for the barren 
sceptre of lier authority. Our retirement as en- 
emies would, in all probability, be the signal for 
intestine conflicts as desperate and sanguinary as 
those in which they have been engaged with us — 
conflicts always the most disastrous for the great 
body of the Mexican people, for, on what side 
soever fortune turns, they are certain to be the 
victims. You know, sir, there are two great par- 
ties in Mexico, (I pass by the minor divisions) — 
the " Federalistas" and " Centralistas." The 
former, as their name imports, are in favor of the 
federative system ; they are the true republican I 
party. With us, in.former times, the terms " Fed- 
eral" and " Republican" designated different par- , 
ties; in Mexico, they are both employed to desig- i 
nate the friends of the federative system. The 
Centralists are in favor of a consolidated Govern- 
ment, republican or monarchical in form, and are 
composed of the army, the clergy, and I suppose 
a small portion of the population. I believe our 
oidy hope of obtaining a durable peace lies in the 
firm establishment of the Federal party in power — 
the party represented by Herrera, Anaya, Peiia y 
Peila, Cumplido, and others. I understand Her- 
rera has been elected President of the Republic; 
and this is certainly a favorable indication. But, 



unfortunately, I fear this party would not succeed 
in maintaining itself, if Mexico were left to her- 
self at the j)resent moment with an imbittered 
feeling of hostility towards us. The military 
chiefs, who controlled the army, and who might 
rally it again, for poliiical uses, if we were to retire 
without a treaty, are for the most [lart enemies of 
the federative system, and conservators of the 
popular abuses, to which they owe their wealth 
and importance. Nothing could be more unfortu- 
nate for Mexico than the retislablishment of these 
men in power. It would bring with it a hopeless 
perpetuation of the anarchy and oppression which 
have given a character to their supremacy in past 
years— a supremacy without a i)rospect of ame- 
lioration in the condition of the Mexican people — 
a supremacy of which the chief variation has been 
an exchange of one military despot for another. 

Calamitous as the restoration of this party to 
their former ascendency would be for Mexico, it 
would hardly be less so for us. Relying on mili- 
tary force for their support, their policy would be 
to continue the war as a pretext for maintaining 
the army in full strength, or, at least, not to termi- 
nate it till peace would en.sure their own suprema- 
cy. It is beheved that these considerations have 
been ku-;uig motives in the resistance they have 
opposed to us. It is true, the republican party has 
be !j equally hostile, so far as external indications 
show; but the fact is accounted for by their desire 
to see the war continued until the army and its 
leaders, the great enemies of the federative system, 
are overthrown. Undoubtedly the obstinate re- 
fusal of Mexico to make peace may be very prop- 
erly referred to the natural exasperation of every 
people whose soil is invaded ; but there can be little 
doubt that it has been influenced, in no inconsidex'- 
able degree, by considerations growing out of party 
divisions, and the jealousy and animosities to which 
those divisions have given rise. My confidence in 
our ability to make an amicable arrangement with 
the federal party, if it were in undisputed posses- 
sion of the Government, arises from the belief that 
their motives are honest, that tliey have at heart 
the public welfare, and that they must see there is 
no hope for Mexico but in a solid peace with us. 
My utter distrust of the Centralists arises from the 
belief that their objects are selfish, and that, to ac- 
complish them, they would not hesitate to sacrifice 
the liberties of the people and the prosperity of the 
country. But whether I err in the.se views or not, 
I feel quite confident I do not err in believing that 
if our armies were to be withdrawn from Mexico, 
without a peace, the flames of civil discord would 
be rekindled in that unhappy country, and burn 
with redoubled violence. I should greatly fear 
that the military chiefs would succeed in reestab- 
lishing their ascendency, and that no probable 
limit could be assigned to the duration of the war. 
If I am right, our true policy is to stand firm, and, 
if possible, united, until wiser counsels shall pre- 
vail in Mexico, and a disposition shall be shown 
to come to an amicable arrangement with us on 
reasonable terms. 

The objection I have stated to the proposition of 
withdrawing our forces from Mexico, concerns 
only the relations which now exist, or may exist 
hereafter, between the two countries. If there 
were no other objection, the question might be 
decided upon considerations touching only their 
domestic interests and their mutual rights. 



But I come to the second objection — one perhaps 
of graver import than the first, because it sup- 
poses the possibility, if not the probability, of an 
interference in her affairs by other countries, if 
we were to retire without a treaty and without 
commercial arrangements, which it would be in 
our power to enforce. The President alluded to 
the subject in his annual messas;e at the opening of 
Congress, and expressed an apprehension of danger 
from that source. I participate in it. I shall as- 
sign the grounds on which it rests; and 1 only 
regret that, in stating them with the minuteness 
necessary to make them fully understood, I shall 
be compelled to 'draw much more largely than I 
desire on the patience of the Senate. 

Senators are doubtless aware that the right of 
intervention in the affairs of this continent was 
formally asserted in the French Chamber of Depu- 
ties, in the year 1845, by M. Guizot, Minister of 
Foreign Affairs, as the organ of the Government 
of France. He regarded the great powers on this 
continent as divided into threr. ^;roupi, namely: 
Great Britain, the United States, and the States of 
Spanish origin; and he declared that it belonged 
to France " to protect, by the authority of her 
iiai'i!?; the independence of States, and the equilib- 
rium of the great political forces in Amerira." To 
this declaration, ! !iave tl ,,;g,'U it not out of place, 
in connection with the subject under discussion, to 
call the attention of the Senate; not for the pur- 
pose of undertaking the formal refutation, of 
which I think the whole doctrine of intervention, 
as it has been practically enforced in Europe, is 
clearly susceptible, but for the purpose of deny- 
ing it as founded upon any well established prin- 
ciples of international law, and, if it had such a 
foundation, of denying its applicability to the po- 
litical condition of this continent. To enter fully 
into the examination of this important subject, 
would require more time than it would be proper 
for me to devote to it. I propose only to pass 
rapidly over a few of the principal considerations 
it suggests. 

The declaration of M. Guizot was the first pub- 
lic and official intimation, by a European govern- 
ment, of an intention to interfere with the political 
condition of the independent communities on the 
continent of America, and to influence by moral, 
if not by physical agencies, their relations to each 
other. And if it had been presented in any other 
form than that of an abstract declaration, not ne- 
cessarily to be followed by any overt act, it v/ould 
have behooved us to inquire, in the most formal 
manner, whether tJiis asserted right of interposi- 
tion derived any justification from the usages of 
nations, or from the recognized principles of inter- 
national law; or whether it was not an assump- 
tion wholly unsupported by authority, and an en- 
croachment on the independence of sovereign 
States, which it would have been their duty to 
themselves and the civilized world to resent as an 
injury a wrong. 

Am I in error in supposing this subject derives 
new importance from our existing relations with 
Mexico, one of the states of Spanish origin, which 
M. Guizot grouped together as constituting one of 
the great political forces of this continent, among 
which the " equilibrium" was to be maintained? 
Sir, more than once, in the progress of the war, 
the governments of Europe have been invoked, by 
leading organs of public opinion abroad, to inter- 



fiose between us and Mexico, Is it not, then, ap- 
propriate briefly to state what this right of inter- 
vention is, as it has been asserted in Europe, what 
it has been in practice, and what it would be likely 
to become, if applied to the States of this conti- 
nent? I trust it will be so considered. 

The doctrine of intervention to maintain the bal- 
ance of power is essentially of modern origin. 
From the earliest ages, it is true, occasional com- 
binations have been formed by particular States for 
mutual protection against the aggressions of a pow- 
erful neighbor. History is full of these examples. 
Such a cooperation is dictated by the plainest 
principles of self-preservation, for the purpose of 
guarding against the danger of being destroyed in 
detail; and it is founded upon such obvious max- 
ims of common sense, that it would have been re- 
markable if it had not been resorted to from the 
moment human society assumed a regular form of 
organization. These defensive alliances were de- 
ficient in the permanence and methodical arrange- 
ments whii'h distinguish the modern system of 
intervention. Hume saw, or fancied he saw, in 
them the principle of the right of intervention to 
preserve the balance of power which is §pserted at 
the present day. But it could only ha.e been the 
principle which was developed ; they certainly 
never attained the maturity or the efficient force of 
It \K:f^J.ix': system. 

The modern doctrine of intervention in the af- 
fairs of other States, which has sprung up within 
the last two centuries, is far more comprehensive 
in its scope. It has grown into a practical system 
of supervision on the part of the principal Euro- 
pean powers over their own relative forces and 
those of the other States of Europe; and though 
it may, in some instances, have been productive of 
beneficial effects in maintaining the public tran- 
quillity, it has as frequently been an instrument of 
the grossest injustice and tyrannj'. From the first 
extensive coalition of this nature, which was 
formed during the long series of wars terminated 
by the peace of Westphalia, in 1648, down to the 
interference of Great Britain, Prussia, Austria, and 
France, in the contest between the Sultan and Me- 
hcmet Ali, in 1840, a period of nearly two centu- 
ries — an interference designed, in some degree, to 
prevent what was regarded as a dangerous protect- 
orate over the affairs of the Porte by Russia — the 
exercise of the right has been placed, theoretically, 
on the same high ground of regard for the tran- 
quillity of Europe and the independence of States. 
Practically, it has often been perverted to the worst 
purposes of aggrandizement and cupidity. 

If we look into the writers on international law, 
! think we shall find no sufficient ground for the 
right of intervention. Grotius, who wrote in the 
early part of the seventeenth -century, denied its 
existence. Fenelon, who wrote about half a cen- 
tury later, denied it, except as a means of self-pre- 
servation, and then only when the dangerwas real 
and imminent. Vattel, who wrote nearly a. century 
after Fenelon, and a century before our own times, 
regarded the States of Europe as forming a political 
system, and he restricted the right of entering into 
confederacies and alliances for the purpose of inter- 
vention in the affairs of each other, to cases in 
v/hich such combinations were necessary to curb 
the ambition of any power which, from its superi- 
ority in physical strength, and its designs of op- 
pression or conquest, threatened to become danger- 



5 



oils to its neighbors. De Martens, wlio wrote half 
a century ago, acknowledges, with Vattcl, the ex- 
istence oftheriglit under certain conditions, tiiough 
be hardly admits it to be well settled as a rule of 
international law; and he limits its exercise to 
neighboring states, or states occupying the same 
quarter of the globe. But, according to the two 
last writers, who have, perhaps, gone as far as any 
other public jurists, of equal eminence, towards a 
formal recognition of the right, it only justifies a 
union of inferior states within the same immediate 
sphere of action, to prevent an acctmiulalion of 
power in the hands of a single sovereign, which 
would be too great for the common liberty. 

I am confident, Mr. President, that no one can 
rise from a review of the history of modern Eu- 
rope, and from an examination of the writings of 
her public jurists, without being satisfied that the 
right of intervention, as recognized by civilized 
nations, is what I have stated it to be — a mere 
right, on the ]mrt of weaker states, to combine 
for the purpose of preventing the subversion of 
their independence, and the alienation of their ter- 
ritories, by a designing and powerful neighbor; a 
right to h". exercised only in cases of urgent and 
immediate danger. It is sim|)ly a right of self- 
preservation, undefined, undefinable, having no set- 
tled or permanent foundation in public law, to be 
asserted only in extreme necessity, and when arbi- 
trarily applied to practice, a most fruitful source of 
abuse, injustice, and oppression. One clear and 
■certain limitation it happily possesses — a limitation 
which, amid all its encroachments upon the inde- 
pendence of sovereign States, has never until our 
clay been overpassed. By universal consent, by 
the unvarying lestimony of abuse itself, it is not 
to be exercised beyond the immediate sphere of 
the nations concerned. It pertains rigidly and ex- 
clusively to states within the same circle of politi- 
cal action. It is only by neighbors, for the pro- 
tection of neighbors against neighbors, that it can, 
even upon tlie broadest principles, be lightfully 
employed. When it traverses oceans, and looks 
to the regulation of the political concerns of other 
continents, it becomes a gigantic assumption, 
which, for the independence of nations, for the 
interests of humanity, for the tranquillity of the 
Old World and the New, should be significantly 
repelled. 

Mr. President, a review of the history of Eu- 
rope during the last two centuries will bring with 
it another conviction in respect to the right of in- 
tervention — that nfs- reliance can be placed on its 
restriction in practice to the objects to which it is 
limited by every public jurist who admits its ex- 
istence at all; and that nothing could be so dis- 
couraging to the friends of free government as an 
extension of the system to this continent, if the 
power existed to introduce it here. Though the 
comljinations it is claimed to authorize may, in 
some instances, have protected the coalescing par- 
ties from the danger of being overrun by conquer- 
ing armies, the cases are perhaps as numerous, in 
which their interposition has been lent to break 
down the independence of states, and to throw 
whole communities of men into the arms of govern- 
ments to wliich their feelings and pi-iiiciples \iere 
alike averse. The right, as has been seen — (and 
it cannot be too often repeated) — with the utmost 
latitude claimed for it by any public jurist, goes no 
further than to authorize a lettgue on the part of 



two or more weaker states to protect themselves 
against the designs of an ambitious and powerful 
neighbor. In its practical application, it has more 
frequently resulted in a coinbination of powerful 
states to destroy their weaker neighbors for the 
augmentation of their own dominions or those of 
their allies. From a mere right to combine for 
self-preservation, they have made it in practice a 
right to divide, dismember, and partition states at 
their pleasure — not for the pur|)ose of diminishing 
the strength of a poweiful adversary — but under 
the pretence of creatipg a system of balances, which 
is artificial in its structure, and, in some degree, 
incongruous in its elements, and which a single 
political convulsion may overturn and destroy. Do 
we need examples of the abuse of the power, I 
will not call it a right? They will be found in the 
dismembermentofSaxony,theannexation of the re- 
public of Genoa to the kingdom of Sardinia, and the 
absorption of Venice by Austria. There is another 
and a more aggravated case of abuse to which re- 
cent events have given new prominence. In 1772, 
Russia, Prussia, and Austria, under the pretence that 
the disturbed condition of Poland was dangerous to 
their own tranquillity, seized upon about one-third 
of her territories, and divided it amona; themselves. 
In 1793, notsvithstanding her diminished propor- 
tions, she had become more dangerous, and they 
seized half of what they had left to her by the first 
partition. Sir, she continued to grow dangerous 
as she grew weak ; and in two years after the sec- 
ond partition, they stripped her of all that remained. 
In 1815, the five great Powers, at the Congress of 
Vieima, from motives of policy, and not from a 
returning sense of justice, organized the city of 
Cracow and a portion of the surrounding territory, 
with a population of about one hundred thousand 
souls, into a republic, under the protection of Aus- 
tria, Russia, and Prussia, with a guarantee of its 
independence in perpetuity. Russia pledged her- 
self, at the same time, to maintain her share of the 
spoil, as the kingdom of Poland in name and form, 
with a constitutional government. Sbe kept her 
pledge seventeen years, and then virtually incor- 
porated it as an integral part into the Russian em- 
pire. The little republic of Cracow was all that 
remained as a monument of the dismembered king- 
dom. A year a^o, it was obliterated as an inde- 
pendent state by the three great powers of eastern 
and northern Europe, in violation of their solemn 
guarantee, and assigned to Austria. The name of 
Poland, the fountain of so many noble and ani- 
mating recollections, is no longer to be found on 
the map of Europe. The three quarters of a cen- 
tury which intervened from the inception to the 
consummation of this transaction are not sufficient 
to conceal or even to obscure its true character. 
Tiie very magnitude of the space over which it is 
spread only serves to bring it out in bolder and 
darker relief from the pages of history. 

If the United States, in the progress of these 
usurpations, has not remonstrated against them, 
and contributed by her interposition to maintain 
the integrity of the states thus disi)rganized and 
dismembered in violation of every riile of right, 
and every suggestion of justice and humanity, it 
is because we have been faithful, against all move- 
ments of sympathy, against the very instincts of 
nature, to the principle of abstaining from all inter- 
ference with the movements of European powers, 
which relate exclusively to the condition of the 



6 



quarter of the globe to which they belong. But 
when it is proposed or threatened to extend to this 
coniinent and to ourselves a similar system of bal- 
ances, with all its danger of abuse and usurpation, 
I hold it to be our duty to inquire on what grounds 
it rests, that we may be prepared to resist all prac- 
tical application of it to the independent states in 
this hemisphere. 

Mr. President, the declaration of M. Guizot 
could hardly have been made without tiie previous 
approbation of the government, of which he was 
the organ. The same sovereign occupies tiie throne 
of France — the same minister stands before it as 
the exponent of his opinions. Is the declaration 
to be regarded as a mere idle annunciation in words 
of a design never intended to be carried into prac- 
tice? Let me answer the question by the briefest 
possible reference to circumstances. France was 
the coadjutor oi' England in the attempt to induce 
Texas to decline annexation to the Union. Failing 
in this, she attempted to accomplish the same ob- 
ject indirectly, by persuading Mexico to recognize 
the independence of Texas, on condition that the 
latter should remain an independent state. These 
terms were offered to Texas, and rejected. In the 

Sear 1844, I believe less than twelve months before 
I. Guizot's declaration was made, (and the coin- 
cidence in point of time is remarkable,) a book on 
Oregon and California was publislied in Paris by 
order of the King of France, under the auspices of 
Marshal Soult, President of the Council, and M. 
Guizot, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and written 
by M. de Mofras, who was attached to the French 
legation in Mexico. The first part of the work is 
devoted to Mexico, and certainly contains some 
remarkable passages. He speaks of the establish- 
ment of a European monarchy as a project which 
had been suggested as the only one calculated to 
put an end to the division.? and annihilate the fac- 
tions which desolated that beautiful country.* He 
says the Catholic religion and family relations, 
with the ancient possessors of the country, would 
be the first conditions required of the princes, wiio 
should be called to reconstruct there a monarchical 
government. He then adds: 

"The infantas of Spain, the French prince:^, and the 
archdukes of Austria, fulfil these conditions, and we may 
altirni ihal, from wluchever quarter a competitor should 
present himself, he would be Uiiauimoualy welcomed by the 
Mexican people. 

" What, tiieii, are the interests of France in these ques- 
tions .' 



* The day after this speech was delivered, Mr. D. received 
from a friend in New York, who could have had no knowl- 
edge of his intention to speak, much less of the topics he 
desiained to diicu.s», a triuislation from a speech delivered^ to 
the Cartes of Spain oji the 1st of D"cer:iber, 1847, by Sefior 
Olozo^a, a man of distinction, and supposed to he the 
same individual who was a few years since fiift minister of 
the Crown. By this speech it' appears that as receiitly as 
1846, a year after M. Guizot's declaration was made, and 
two years after M. de MoiVas's biiok was published, Inr^i; 
sums were expended by Spain for the purpose of establish- 
ing a monarchy in Mexico, and of placim; a Spa:iish piiiioe 
on the throne. The close connection wf the governments of 
France and Spain liy the mania^'e of tiie Duke of Montpen- 
sier, the son of Louis Philippe, to the sister of (Jn;;en Isa- 
bella, gives additional importance to these develnpinents: 

" No rtne, either on this floor or elsewhere, can deny that 
the project lias been entertained of establishing a monarchy 
in Mexico, and to place a S|)anisli prince on the throne. 
This project, conceived in the ti;ne of t!ie Conde Aranda, 
would have saved our colonies from the sad fate they have 
sutfercd ; but brought forward on this occasion, it was the 
most absurd idea that could have been eonceivetf. But we 
liave not only to deplore liaving excited political animosilies 
and the consequences tins has produced in that country ; we 



"The establishment in Mcxioo of a monarchy of any de- 
scription whatever, resting upon a solid basis, should be the 
first object of our policy; for we know that tlie instability 
attached to the actual form of its governuienl, brings with it 
disadvantages for our commerce, and inconveniences fo< 
our people." 

He adds, that if Mexico is to preserve her re- 
publican form of government, her incorporation 
into the Union of the North would seem more 
favorable to France than her existing condition, on 
account of the development of commerce and all 
the guarantees of liberty, security, and justice, 
which his compatriots would enjoy, and that Eng- 
land would lose, under such an order of thing's, 
what France would gain. Thus, though the dis- 
memberment and absorption of Mexico by the Uni- 
ted States, are regarded by M. de Mofras as pi*efer- 
able to the commercial monopoly and the " species 
of political sovereignty," as he denominates it, 
which England has exercised in that country, the 
first object of France, according to him, should be a 
reconstruction of monarchy in Mexico, with a for- 
eign prince on the throne, and this prince from some 
branch of the Bourbon family. The opinions con- 
tained in this book are not put forth as the mere 
speculations of a private person. They are the 
opinions of an agent of the government: the pub- 
lication is made by order of the king, and under 
the auspices of his two chief ministers, and so 
stated in the title page. I do not mean to hold the 
government of France responsible for all the opin- 
ions contained in that work ; but, can we believe 
that those I have quoted, concerning as they do so 
grave a subject as the international relations of 
France with Mexico, and of Mexico with the 
United States, would have been put forth without 
modification under such high official sanctions, if 
ihey had been viewed with positive disfavor.' It 
appears to me, that we are constrained to view 
them, like the declaration of M. Guizot, though 
certainly to a very inferior extent, as possessing 
an oflicial character, which we are not at liberty 
wholly to disregard, when we consider the one in 
connection with the other. 

And now, sir, 1 ask, do not these opinions and 
declarations, e.^peciallj'' when we look to the open 
and direct interference of Great Britain and France, 
by force of arms, in the domestic affairs of some 
of the South American republics within the last 
two years, furnish a just ground of apprehension, 
if we should retire from Mexico without a treaty 
and'as enemies, that it might become a theatre for 

have also to lament the money lost and thrown away upon 
Mexican soil. And in order that the Cortes may not believe 
Jam about to make accusations of so grave a chF.racter with- 
out possersing proof's to corroborate tliem, I r.owhold in my 
band astatement of the sums expended and drawn f.om j^he 
treasury in Havana in the year 1846, signed by tlie Sefior 
Navarro as auditor, and Mn:;ica as treasurer. In ibis state- 
ment there is an item wbieli .>-ays: ' Paid bills of exchange 
remiUed by tlic minister pieaipotenliaiy ot her M.ijesty in 
Mexico foi matters belonging to the service, ^lO.O.OO,).' But 
much greater than this was the authority our n.ijiisler in 
Mexico possessed for disposing of the public funds. I do not 
know wiiether he has uuide use of it. I do not even know 
his name. I suppose lie will employ them with scrupu- 
lous honesty; but is the Spanish people so bountifully sup- 
plied with millions that they can aflord to send them to the 
New World, for the purpose of sustaining political intrigues 
i n that distant region ? How many meritorious military men, 
who have shed Ineir blood for the good of their country, and 
whose means of support have btcn cut down to the lowest 
possible point, mighl have bec^n aided by these large sunis ? 
How much misery mislit have been alleviated by the money 
wiiich has been tluowii away in tliis manneri" And where 
do they find authority Cot squandering millions to fo.sicr for- 
eign intrigues?" 



the exercise of influences of a most unfriendly 
character to us? With llic iiid of the moiiai'chicut 
party in Mexico, would theri not be danger that 
the avowed design of establishing a ihroiie, tni;L!;ht 
be reahzed ? The clianccs of open interposition 
are unquestionably diniinislied by the results of 
the war; but 1 am constrained to believe the 
chances of secret interference are increased by the 
avidity imputed to us for territorial extension. 
Ought not this danger to influence, to some ex- 
tent, our own conduct, at least so far as to dis- 
suade us from abandoning, until a l.ietter pros- 
pect of a durable peace shall exist, the advantage 
we have gained as belligerents? We know a 
great majority of the Mexican people are radically 
averse tu any other than a republican form of gov- 
ernment; but we know, also, the proneness of a 
peo|ile among whom anarchy reigns triumphant, 
to seek any refuge which promises the restoration 
of tranquillity and social order. 

Mr. President, any attempt by a European power 
to inter|)ose in the atTairs of Mexico, either to estab- 
lish a monai-chy, or to maintain, in the language of 
M. Guizot, " the equilibrium of the great political 
forces in America," would be the signal for a war 
for more important in its consequences, and inscru- 
table in its issues, than this. We could not sub- 
mil to such inter|iosition if we would. The [)ublic 
opinion of the country would compel us to resist 
it. We are committed by the most formal decla- 
rations, first made by President Mom;oe in 1823, 
and repetited by the present Chief Magistrate of 
the Union. We have protested, in the niostsolemn 
manner, against any further colonization by Euro- 
pean powers on this continent. We have protested 
against any interlerence in the political concerns of 
the independent states in this hemisphere. A pro- 
test, it is true, does not imply that the ground it 
assuijies is to be maintained at all hazards, and if 
necessary, by force of arms. Great Britain pro- 
tested against the interference of France in the 
affairs of Spain in 1823; she has more recently 
protested against the absorption of Cracow by 
Austria as a violation of the political order of 
Europe, settled at Vienna by the allied sovereigns, 
and against the Montpensier marriage as a viola- 
tion of the treaty of Utrecht; but I do not remem- 
ber that in either case che did anything more than 
to proclaim to the world her dissent from the acts 
against which she entered her protest. It has 
always seemed to me to be unv/ise in a government 
to put forth raaiiifciitoes without being prepared to 
maintain them by acts, or to make declarations of 
abstract principle until the occasion has arrived for 
enforcing them- The declarations of a President 
having no power to make war without a vote of 
Congress, or even to employ the military force of 
the country except to defend our own territory, is 
very different from the protest of a sovereign hold- 
ing the issues of peace and war in his own hands. 
But the former may not be less effectual when they 
are sustained, as I believe those of Presidents 
Monroe and Polk are, in respect to European in- 
terference on the American continent, by an undi- 
vided public opinion, even though they may not 
have received a formal response from Congress. I 
l;old, therefore, if any such interposition as that 
U) which I have referred should take place, resist- 
ance on oui- part would inevitably follow, and we 
should become involved in controversies, of which 
BO man could foresee the end- 



Before I quit this part of the subject, 1 desire to 
advert to some ciicumstances recently made public, 
and, if true, indicating significantly the extent to 
which Great Britain is disposed to carry her other 
encroachments on this continent, as in every other 
quarter of the globe. On the coast of Honduras, in 
Central America, commonly called the Musquilo 
coast, there is a tribe of Indians bearing the same 
name, numbering but a few hundred individuals, 
and inhabiting some miserable villages in the 
neighborhood of Cape Gracias a Dios, near the 
fifteenth parallel of north latitude. Several hun- 
dred miles south is the river San Juan, running 
from Lake Nicaragua to the Caribbean sea, a 
space of about two degrees of longitude, with the 
town of Nicaragua at its mouth, and a castle or 
fort about midway between the town and the lake. 
The lake is only fifteen leagues from the Pacific, 
and constitutes, with th.e river San Juan, one of 
the proposed lines for a ship canal across the 
isthmus. Great Britain has recently laid claim to 
the river San Juan and the town of Nicaragua, if 
she has not actually taken possession of the latter. 
1 have seen a connnunication from the British 
consul-general at Guatemala, asserting the inde- 
pendence of the Mosquitos as a nation. 1 have 
also seen a communication from the British con- 
sul at Bluefield, on the Mosquito shore, asserting 
that " the Mosquito flag and nation are under the 
special protection of the crown of Great Britain," 
and that " the limits which the British Govern- 
ment is determined to maintain as the right of the 
King of the Mosquitos" " comprehend the San 
Juan river." By Arrowsmith's London Atlas, 
published in 1840, th.e Mosquito territory covered 
about 40,000 square miles, nearly as large an area 
as that of the State of New York; but it did not 
extend below the twelfth parallel of latitude, while 
the river San Juan is on the eleventh. I have seen 
the protest of the State of Nicaragua against the 
occupation of the town of Nicaragua on the river 
San Juan, which, as the protest declares, has been 
from time immemorial in her quiet and peaceable 
possession. The state of San Salvador, one of 
the Central American republics, also unites in 
the protest, and declares her determination, if the 
outrage shall be carried into efl^ect, to exert her 
whole power until the usurper " shall be driven 
from the limits of Central America." 

I understand, for I speak only from inforrnation, 
that Great Britain has for some time claimed to 
have had the Mosquitos, a mere naked tribe of In- 
dians of a few hundred persons, under her protec- 
tion.* Through her influence they apjiointed a 
king, who was taken to Belize, a British station o» 
the bay of Yucatan, and there crowned. It is said, 
also, that on the decease of the king, he was 
found to have bequeathed his dominions to her 
Britannic Majesty. It aj)pears to be certain that 
she has, under this pretence of protection, extend- 
ed her dominion over an immense' surface in Cen- 



* Extract of a letter from the Supreme Government of the State 
of Nicarai^ua t3 the Supreme Government of the State of 
fan Salvador. 

" A tiil)e with no rccognizpd form of government, with- 
out, civilization, anil entirely abiuidoiipd to savauc lifi;, is 
sLidJenly made iis(M)t'l)y enlightened England for tlie pur- 
pose of planiing one of her Ibet Ui>on the Athuilic coast of 
this ytati^ or rather, for the ptn'po>e of takiiiq iio.-session of . 
the port for coiMmuMicnlion helwecii Kiiro|M;, Anjcrioa, and 
A^ia, and other important countries at the point where tlie 
grand iuter-occanic canal is most practicable." 



8 



tral America; that she liaf? at least one vessel of 
war, the Sun, commanded by an officer bearing an 
English name, " Commander Trotter, of the JVlos- 
quito navy," as he is styled in a letter written by 
the British consul at Bluefield, and that she is still 
further extending herself, against the remonstrance 
of the Central American States. But these states, 
besides being physically weak, are distracted by 
internal feuds; and if the proceedings complained 
of be not the unauthorized acts of British agents, 
which Great Britain will disavow, it is hardly to 
be expected that a usurpation, so unjustifiably con- 
summated, will be abandoned on an appeal to the 
justice of the wrong-doer. Whether our govern- 
ment should remain quiescent under this encroach- 
ment upon near and defenceless i>eighl)ors, is a 
question worthy of consideration. Utider any 
circumstances, it seems to me to afford little assu- 
rance of non-interference with the affairs of Mexi- 
co, if our forces were to be withdrawn without a 
treaty. 

There is another consideration which ought not 
to be overlooked. In July last, Lord George Ben- 
tinck made a motion for an address to her Britan- 
nic Majesty, praying her to take such measures as 
she might deem proper to secure the payment of 
the Spanish government bonds held by I?rilish sub- 
jects. Those bonds amount to about three hun- 
dred and eighty millions of dollars, and on about 
three hundred and forty millions no interest what- 
ever has been paid; and including this debt nearly 
seven hundred and tliirty millions of dollars are 
due to British subjects by foreign governments — a 
sum equal to about one-fifth of her national debt. 
He contended, that " by the law of nations, from 
time immemorial, it has been held that the recov- 
ery of just debts is a lawful cause of war, if the 
country from which payment is due refuses to 
listen to tiie claims of the country to whom money 
is owing." He quoted authorities to show that 
the payment of the debt, or the interest on it, 
might be enforced without having recourse to 
arms, though asserting the right to resort to force 
to compel it. He referred to the rich colonies of 
Spain, and especially Cuba, to show that there 
was wealth enough in its annual produce and rev- 
enue " to pay the whole debt due by Spain to 
British bond-holders." He referred to the naval 
force which Spain possessed to show that there 
would not be "any very effective resistance," 
and that " the most timid minister" need not fear 
it. Having, in the course of his remarks, called 
the attention nf the Minister of Foreign Affairs to 
the subject. Lord Palmerston, in responding to his 
call, entered into an extended statement in respect 
to the foreign debt due to British subjects. He 
drew a distinction between transactions by one 
government with another, by British subjects with 
a foreign governm.ent, by British subjects with the 
subjects of another government, and between debts 
and acts of injustice and oppression. This dis- 
tinction, however, he treated as matter of expedi- 
ency and established practice. He assented to the 
doctrine laid down by the nolile bird who made 
the motion for an address, and he said, if it were 
the wise policy of England to lay down a rule that 
she would enforce obligations of this character 
with the same rigor as those of a different charac- 
ter, she would have a full and fair right, according 
to the laws of nations, to do so. And he conclud- 
ed by saying that England had not refrained from 



talcing the steps urged by his noble friend, because 
she was " afraid of these stales, or all of them put 
together;" that it was not to be supposed the Brit- 
ish Parliament, or the British nation, would long 
remain patient under the wrong, and that they had 
ample power and means to obtain justice. 

I pass over the doctrines put forth in the speech 
of Lord George Bentinck, and sanctioned by Lord 
Palmerston, though I believe it not perfectly clear 
that they can be maintained to the full extent, by 
an appeal to any well established principles of in- 
ternational law. You know, sir, that we have 
sometimes found British statestnen, even those 
holding places nearest to the throne, at fault, both 
in respect to matters of principle and matters of 
fact, though it is certainly but justice to concede 
to them the possession of more enlarged views of 
policy, combined with greater practical talent and 
tact, than is often to be found in the councils of 
European sovereigns. I pass over also an offen- 
sive allusion to the fiiilure of two or three of the 
States of this Union to pay their debts, " as a 
stain upon the national character," (I use his own 
language,) when it is well known that the suspen- 
sion of payment was temporary, and from over- 
ruling necessity; that in most instances resump- 
tion has taken place; and that, in all, the most 
earnest efforts have been made to resume the dis- 
charge of their obligations. This imputation v/as 
cast upon us at the moment when our people, with 
one heart, were sending abroad their agricultural 
surplus to feed the famished population of Ire- 
land, not merely in the way of commercial ex- 
change, but in the form of donations, in ship-loads, 
public and private. And so far as the commercial 
portion is concerned, I believe our merchants have 
for months been draining our banks of specie, to 
send abroad to meet their own pecuniary obliga- 
tions, while for a time at least they were unable to 
draw on their debtors in England for the proceeds of 
the breadstuffs by which her subjects had been fed. 
But I pass by all this, and come to the important 
fact that Mexico was among the indebted foreign 
States enumerated in a report, on which the mo- 
tion of Lord George Bentinck was founded. What 
is the extent of her indebtedness I do not know, 
but I understand about seventy millions of dollars 
— and I believe it was but recently that the public 
domain in California was mortgaged to the credit- 
ors for a portion of this amount, though the lien 
is now said to be discharged. 

I appeal to honorable Senators to say, with 
these facts before them — with this public and offi- 
cial assertion of a principle, which, accoi-ding to 
Lord Palmerston, the British government has only 
abstained from practically enforcing through mere 
considerations of policy — whether, if our forces 
were withdrawn from Mexico, and that country 
should become a prey to the anarchy and confusion 
which has reigned there so long, and which, if 
renewed, would in all probability become univer- 
sal and hopeless — whether, I say, there would not 
be a temptation too strong to be resisted to reduce 
the principle thus proclaimed to practice? whether 
some portion of the Mexican territory might not 
be occupied as a guarantee for the payment of the 
debt due to British subjects, and thus another prin- 
ciple be violated, which we are committed to 
maintain? I do not mean to say that this consid- 
eration, if it stood alone, should absolutely con- 
trol our conduct. But as auxiliary to the graver 



9 



considerations to which I have refeireJ, it appears 
to me that it may properly be allowed some weight 
— enough, sir, perhaps, to turn the scale, if it were 
already balanced — though, 1 think, there is suffi- 
cient without it to incline us decisively to the side 
of continued occupation. 

Besides, British subjects have other extensive 
pecuniary interests in Mexico: they have large 
commercial establishments and heavy investments 
of capital in the mining districts. If the political 
affairs of that country should fall into inextricable 
confusion, it is not to be supposed that these great 
interests will be abandoned by Great Britain; and 
yet it is extremely ditlicult to see by v/hat interpo- 
sition on her part they could be secured without 
the danger of collision between her and us. 

Mr. President, in what I have said in respect to 
the danger of foreign interposition, I have not re- 
lied upon the ephemeral opinions of the day, or on 
opinions expressed in public journals abroad, how- 
ever intimately those journals may be supposed to 
be connected with governments, as the organs of 
the views which it is deemed advisable to throw 
out, from time to time, for the public considera- 
tion or guidance. I have resorted to no irrespon- 
sible sources. I have presented opinions and dec- 
larations proclaimed with more or less of official 
sanction, and for the most part, with the highest — 
I mean the declarations of ministers, speaking for 
their governments to the popular body, and as the 
responsible representatives of sovereigns, holding 
in their own hands the authority to enforce, or 
attempt to enforce, what they proclaim. How far 
these declarations, taken in connection with the 
acts referred to, should influence our conduct, is a 
question on which we may not all agree. But it 
appears to me that it would be a great error in 
statesmanship to treat them as wholly unworthy 
of our consideration. Jealousy of our increasing 
power, commercial rivalry, political interests, all 
combine to give them importance. It is the prov- 
ince of a wise forecast to provide, as far as possible, 
that these adverse influences shall find no theatre 
for their exercise. To abandon Mexico would, it 
seems to me, throw wide open all the avenues for 
their admittance — one power for commercial mo- 
nopoly, and the other for political control — and 
perhaps impose on us the difficult and dangerous 
task of removing evils which a proper vigilance 
might have prevented. 

it may be, Mr. President, that we shall have an 
early peace. I sincerely hope so. In this case, 
we must withdraw from Mexico; and it may per- 
haps be said that the dangers I have referred to as 
likely to result from our absence at the present 
moment may possibly be realized. These dangers, 
whatever they may be, we must incur whenever 
she shall tender us a peace, which we ought to 
accept. But there is a wide difference between 
retiring as belligerents and enemies without a 
treaty, and as friends under an amicable ar- 
rangement, with solemn obligations on both sides 
to keep the peace. In the former case, probably 
one of the first acts of ?\lexico would be to re- 
assemble her army, and her government might 
fall under the control of her military leaders. In 
the latter, amicable relations being restored, and 
military forces being unnecessary, at least to act 
against us, the peace party would have better 
hopes of maintaining themselves, of preventing the 
army, which is now regarded as responsible for the 



national disasters, from gaining the ascendency, 
and also of excluding influences from abroad, 
which would be hostile to her interests and fatal 
to the common tranquillity of both countries. 

In the references I have made to France and 
Great Britain, I have been actuated by no feeling 
of unkindness or hostility to either. Rapid and 
wide-spread as has been the progress of the latter, 
we have never sought (o interfere with it. She 
holds one-third of the North American continent. 
She has established her dominion in the Bermu- 
das, the West Indies, and in Guiana, on the South 
American continent. She holds Belize, on the bay 
of Yucatan, in North America, with a district of 
about fourteen thousand square miles, if we may 
trust her own geographical delineations. We see 
her in the occupation of territories in every quar- 
ter of the globe, vastly, inordinately extended, 
and still ever extending herself. It is not easy 
to keep pace with her encroachments. A few 
years ago the Indus was the western boundary of 
her Indian empire. She has passed it. She has 
overrun Aftghanistan and Beeloochistan, though 
I believe she has temporarily withdrawn from the 
former. She stands at the gates of Persia. She 
has discussed the policy of passing Persia, and 
making the Tigris her western boundary in Asia. 
One stride more would place her upon the shores 
of the Mediterranean; and her armies would no 
longer find their way to India by the circumnavi- 
gation of Africa. Indeed, she has now, for all 
government purposes of communication, except 
the transportation of troops and munitions of war, 
a direct intercourse with the east. Her steamers 
of the largest class run from England to Alexan- 
dria; from Alexandria there is a water communi- 
cation with Cairo — some sixty miles; fiom Cairo 
it is but eight hours overland to Suez, at the head 
of the Red Sea; froni Suez her steamers of the 
largest class run to Aden, a military station of hers 
at the mouth of the Red Sea, from Aden to Cey- 
lon, and from Ceylon to China. She is not merely 
conquering her way back from Hisdoostan. She 
has raised her standard beyond it. She has en- 
tered the confines of the Celestial Empire. Siie has 
gained a permanent foothold within it; and who 
that knows her, can believe that pretests will long 
be wanting to extend her dominion there? Though 
it is for commerce mainly that she is thus adding 
to the number and extent of her dependencies, it 
is not for commerce alone. The love of power and 
extended empire is one of the efficient principles of 
her gigantic efforts and movements. No island, 
however remote, no rock, however barren, on 
which the cross of St. George has once been un- 
furled, is ever willingly relinquished, no matter 
how expensive or inconvenient it maybe to main- 
tain it. She may be said literally to encircle the 
globe by an unbroken chain of dependencies. Nor 
is it by peaceful means that she is thus extending 
herself. She propagates commerce, as Moham- 
medanism propagated religion, by fire and sword. 
If she negotiates, it is with fleets and armies at the 
side of her ambassadors, in order to use the language 
of her diplomacj'-, " to give force to their repre- 
sentations." She is essentially and eminently a 
military power, unequalled on the sea and unsur- 
passed on the land. Happily, the civilization, 
which distinguishes her at home, goes with her 
and obliterates some of the bloody traces of her 
march to unlimited empire. 



10 



Much less has any iinlc'rnd feeling dictated my, 
reference to France. Our relations with her have 
usually been of the most friendly character. From 
the foundation of our Government there has exist- 
ed, on our side, a strong feeling of sympathy in 
her prosperities and her misfortunes, which no tem- 
porary interruption of our friendship has iseen able 
to eradicate. There is reason for this feeling: it 
would not have been creditalile to us as a people if 
it had proved a transient sentiment. She stood 
forth at a critical period in our contest for inde- 
pendence, and rendered us the most essential ser- 
vice by her cooperation and aid. The swords of j 
Washins^ton and Lafayette were unsheathed on 
the same battle-fields. Our waters and our plains ' 
have been crimsoned with tlie generous blood of 
France. The names of Rochambeau, De Grasse, 
and D'Estaing are identified with our struggles for 
freedom. They have become, in some degree, 
American, and we give them to our children as 
names to be remembered for tlie gallant deeds of 
those who bore them. It is not surprising, under 
such circumstances, that in the survey of the 
European system, we should have been accustomed 
to regard France as the pow^er most likely, in the 
progre.ss of events, to become the rival of England 
on the ocean as slie has been on the land: and with 
a large portion of our people, if the wish has not 
been "parent," it has, at least, been companion 
"to the thought." For this reason, the declara- 
tion of M. Guizot was considered, independently 
of all views of right, as peculiarly ungracious, and i 
as a demonstration of feeling totally inconsistent 
with the ancient friendship by which the two 
countries have been united. I have never believed 
it to be in accordance with the sentiments of the 
French people. And so strong has been my reli- 
ance on their right judgment and feeling, that I 
confess I have thought it not unlikely that an inter- 
position in our affairs, so completely at variance 
with amicable relations, which ought to be held 
sacred, might be arrested by a more decisive inter- 
position at home against its authors. 

I repeat, I have spoken in no spiritof unkindness 
either towards Great Britain or France. I desire 
nothing but friendship with them — close, cordial, 
constant, mutually beneficial friendship. I speak 
of them historically, as they exist and exhibit 
themselves to the eyes of the civilized world. 

Thus far, I have considered the probable conse- 
quences of retiring from Mexico, as they are likely 
to affect our poliiical relations with her, and pos- 
sibly with other Slates. I now turn, for a single 
moment only, to a different class of considera- 
tions — I mean considerations arising out of our 
claims to indemnity for injuries. Although the 
war was not commenced to^^secure it, this is one 
of the avowed objects f)r which it has been pros- 
ecuted. Shall we abandon the position we have 
taken, and leave this object unaccomplished? Shall 
we not rather retain what we have acquired, until 
our just claim.^ are satisfied? To do otherwise 
would be to have incurred an enormous expendi- 
ture of treasure and blood to no f)urpose — to have 
prosecuted the war till we had the means of in- 
demnifying ourselves in our own hands, and then 
voluntarily to relinquish them. Such a course 
seems to me utterly irreconcilable cither with jus- 
tice to ourselves or with sound policy. If I am 
not mistaken in the views I have expressed, it 
would be an abandonment of indemnity without 



getting rid of the war, on which we must now rely 
to procure it. These considerations do not apply 
to the policy suggested by the honorable Senator 
from South Carolina. He proposes to take indem- 
nity into our own hands by occupying a portion of 
northern or central Mexico, and holding it without 
a treaty. My remarks are only applicable to the 
policy of withflrawing from Mexico altogether, 
and leaving the adjustment of differences to future 
negotiations. 

Having thus declared myself in favor of the oc- 
cupation of Mexico until she shall consent to make 
peace, I deem it proper to say, in connection with 
this subject, that I have been uniformly opposed, 
and that I am still opposed, to all schemes of con- 
quest for the acquisition of territory. In this re- 
spect, I concur in what the Senator from South 
Carolina has said, and for nearly the same reasons. 
I am opposed to all such schemes, because they 
would be inconsistent with the avowed objects of 
the war ; because they would be incompatible with 
justice and sound policy; and because, if success- 
ful, they would be utterly subversive of the funda- 
mental principle of our political system, resting as 
it does on a voluntary association of free and inde- 
pendent States. I have been uniformly in favor 
of the most energetic measures in the prosecution 
of the war, because I believed them most likely to 
bring it to a close. In carrying our arms to the 
enemy's capital and occupying his territory, I can 
see nothing inconsistent with the principles of jus- 
tice or the usages of civilized States. In the pros- 
ecution of a war undertaken to procure a redress 
of injuries, the territories or property of an enemy 
may be seized for the express purpose of compel- 
ling him to do justice. More may be taken than 
would constitute a fair indemnity for actual inju- 
ries, provided it be done with the intention of re- 
storing the surplus when he shall consent to make 
peace on reasonable terms. It is in this spirit, and 
with this intention, that my cooperation has been 
given to the vigorous prosecution of the war. We 
have a right to insist on a fair boundary, we may 
exact indemnity for injuries ; we may demand in- 
demnification for the expenses of the war, if we 
please. But here all right ceases ; and if, when 
this is conceded, we have more on our hands, we 
are bound, on every principle of law and good con- 
science, to make restitution. It is admitted on all 
hands tliat Mexico is incapal)le of indemnifying us 
in money. But she may do so by ceding to us 
territory which is useless to her, which she has 
not the ability to defend, and which may be useful 
to us. I have always been in favor of acquiring 
territory on just terms. The acquisition of Cali- 
fornia has always appeared to me very desirable, 
on account of its ports on the Pacific. I have 
uniformly voted for acquiring it, when the propo- 
sition has come before us. 1 believe, on the first 
occasion, I was in a minority of ten or eleven. 
My opinion is unchanged. Indeed, it is confirmed 
by' the fact, that California ha^, by our military 
operations, become forever detached from Mexico. 
If it were to be abandoned by us, its forty thou- 
sand inhabitants would undoubtedly establish an 
independent government fn- themselves, and they 
would maintain it if undisturbed by foreign inter- 
ference. 1 take the actual condition of things as I 
find it, and with an earnest desire to fulfil all the 
obliijations it devolves on us in a spirit of justice to- 
wards Mexico and towards the people of California. 



11 



I ^concur also in what the honorable Senator 
from South Carolina has saiii in relation to the in- 
fluence of war on our political institutions. No 
man can deplore it under any circumstances, more 
than myself. Independently of the evils wliicii it 
always lirings in its train, there are considerations 
connected with our political organization and the 
nature of our social progress, which render it 
doubly pernicious in its tendencies. The final suc- 
cess of the experiment we are making in free gov- 
ernment may depend, in some degree, on a steady 
maintenance of the spirit of peace, in which our 
political system had its origin, and in which it has 
thus far been administered. Gre^t as is our ca- 
pacity for war, our whole scheme of government 
IS averse to it. The greatest possible economy in 
expenditure; the least possilile patronage in the 
hands of the Executive; the smallest pecuniary 
exactions from the people, consistent with our ab- 
solute wants; the alisence of all demands on the 
public treasury, which call for unusual contril)u- 
lions of revenue or promote excessive disljur&e- 
ments; the exemption of the country from all 
exigencies which devolve on the legislative and 
executive departments of the government the ex- 
ercise of extraordinary powers; — these are the con- 
ditions under which the ends of our political or- 
ganization are most likely to be fulfilled. Sir, none 
of these conditions belong to a state of war. Ex- 
travagant, disbursements; extraordinary contribu- 
tions of revenue, present or prospective — present, 
in augmented burdens of taxation, prospective, in 
the shape of loans and anticipations of income, 
leading ultimately to taxation; extraordinary pow- 
ers summarily, and sometimes arbitrarily exer- 
cised; — these are the inseparable companions of 
war; and they are inimical to the very genius of 
our social system. 

There are considerations, which, in my judg- 
ment, render a war with Mexico peculiarly unfor- 
tunate, and which justify all the efforts we have 
made to bring it to an amicable termination. We 
are mutually engaged in carrying out on this con- 
tinent tiie experiment of free government, wliich 
in all other ages has proved abortive. We are try- 
ing it under eminently auspicious circumstances. 
We have no strong Governments around us, found- 
ed upon antagonist principles, and adverse in their 
example and influence to the success of ours. We 
are sustained by the faculty of popular representa- 
tion, which was unknown, or at least imperfectly 
known, to the free states of antiquity, and by 
force of which we have been enabled to carry out, 
on geographical areas of indefinite extent, an 
organization which had previously been deemed 
applicable only to communities of limited popula- 
tion and territory. It is natural, under these cir- 
cumstances, that the friends of fi'ee government, 
wherever they are to be found, should turn to us 
as th,e last hope of liljeral institutions. They look 
to us for examples of moderation and forbearance 
in our intercourse with foreign nations — especially 
those having forms of government analooous to 
our own — and for an exemption from the evil pas- 
sions which have embroiled the countries of the Old 
World, and involved them, century after century, 
with brief intermissions, in wars of aml)ition a)id 
revenge. In asserting the superiority of our own 
form of government, the strength of the argument 
will be weakened, if we shall be found no more 
exempt than those, which arc less popular, from 



strife and contention with neighboring States. Re- 
garding the success of our institutions as affecting 
deeply the welfare of our race, and vindicating tlie 
competency of mankind to self-government, I have 
always esteemed it [leculiarly unfortunate lliat any 
cause of aliirialion sho\ild have existed of suffi- 
cient magnitude to induce the two principal repub- 
lics of the western hemisplieic to turn their armg 
against each other. The cause of liberal govern- 
ment is injured, and far more dee|ily injured, than 
it has been by the dissension of the repulilie.s in 
the southern portion of the American continent. 

These are considerations which it were well for 
us always to keep in view — in peace, that we may 
not rush hastily into war; in war, that we may 
spare no honorable effort for a restoration of 
peace. 

There is yet another consideration of a kindred 
character. While the monarchies of Europe are 
at peace with each other, and social improvement 
is advancing, on the continent at least, with unpar- 
alleled rapidity, alrnosl the only wars now waging 
among neighboring States are between us and 
Mexico, and between some of the South American 
republics. I desire, as inuch as anyone can, to 
see these dissentions composed, and to see these 
republican States resume the fulfilment of their 
great mission among the natio)is — the maintenance 
of the principles of political liberty, and the culti- 
vation of the arts of civilization and peace. 

In these views I concur with the Senator from 
South Carolina. But here I am constrained to 
separate from Ifflm. When we corne to practical 
measures, our paths lie wide apart. 

It is for the very reasons I have just slated, 
that I cannot assent to the policy he proposes. I 
believe it calculated to prolong the war, not to 
terminate it; to keep alive the spirit of animosity 
which divides us from Mexico, instead of restoring 
the friendly relations which ought lo exist between 
us. I am in favor, then, of standing as we are. 
And, sir, if she shall refuse to make peace; if we 
must continue in the occujiation of her capital and 
tlu'ce-fonrlhs of her territory, it may be in the 
order of Providence that we shall, through this 
very necessity, become the instruments of her po- 
litical and social regeneration. In the party con- 
flicts which distract her, the means may be found 
of consolidating her governmenton a republican 
basis, of healing her dissensions, and of uniting 
her to us in bonds of friendship by an exercise of 
magnanimity and forbearance in the final adjust- 
ment of our difficulties with her. I believe even 
now something of the salutary influence of our 
presence in her ca|iital and principal sea-ports, 
begins to be felt. The abolition of transit duties, 
the reduction of the impost on foreign articles of 
necessity and convenience, and a fi-eer commerce 
among the Mexican States, may, if continued, 
s'a-ike a fatal blow at the anti-commercial system 
by which her people have been oppressed, and the 
internal abuses by which her rulers have grown 
r ch — a system of mal-administration not even 
equalled by that which exists in old Spain. The 
higher improvement in government, in the arts, 
and in civilization under all its forms, which dis- 
tinguishes our own people, may, by force of actual 
contact, be communicated to the .Mexicans, and 
lay the foundation of an irnproved social order. 
Startling as the reflection is, it is nevertheless 
true, t!:at civilization, and even Christianity, have 



12 



sometimes been propagated by arms, where they 
would otherwise have been hopelessly excluded. 
Thus, the very passions which seem fitted only to 
desolate human society, may, in the hands of 
Providence, become ihe agents of its advancement. 
Let us, then, hope and trust that the contest in 
which we are engaged with a neighboring power, 
deplorable as we all consider it, may be an instru- 
ment of social and political amelioration to our 
adversary. 

The Senator from South Carolina has said, in his 
emphatic language, that we are " tied to a corpse." 
It is a striking figure, Mr. President, and partakes 
strongly of the boldness in which the illustrations 
of that distinguished Senator are always conceived. 
Mexico is, indeed, prostrate — almost politically 
inanimate, if you please — under the oppressions 
which have been heaped upon her, year after year, 
by unscrupulous rulers. But I should be sorry to 
believe her beyond the power of resuscitation, 
even by human means. I do not expect, as our 
contact with her becomes more intimate, to see 
her, like the dead body touched by the bones of 
the prophet, spring, at a single bound, to life and 
strength. But I hope to see her — possibly through 
our instrumentality — freed from the despoticsway 
of her military rulers, and rising, by sure degrees, 
to the national importance I wish her to possess — 
order and tranquillity first, next social improve- 
ment and stable government, and at last an honor- 
able rank among the nations of the earth. I con- 
template no direct interference with her govern- 
ment — no permanent system of protection to be 
exercised over it — no alliance with her beyond 
what may be necessary to secure to us the objects 
of peace. But I do contemplate a treaty, stipulat- 
ing for commercial arrangements, for protection 
aiid security to our own ciuzens in their future in- 
tercourse with her, and no withdrawal of our forces 
without it, at least until all chance of obtaining 
one shall prove hopeless. If we were to retire 
now, all commerce between her and us would cease 
and be transferred to our rivals, our frontier would 
be a line of war, not a boundary between peaceful 
neighbors; and unless the tide of conquest should 
be poured back upon her under the provocations 
such a condition of our relations would almost ne- 
cessarily superinduce, no citizen of the United 
States'could be expected, for years to come, to plant 
his foot on Mexican soil. War dissolves the 
political and commercial relations of independent 
States, so far as they rest upon voluntary agree- 
ment. It is only by a treaty of peace that they can 
be revived, or new relations be substituted for the 
old. 

Mr. President, advocating as I do the occupa- 
tion of Mexico until she shall consent to make 
peace, it may be incumbent on me to state in what 
manner I thitdc it can best be maintained. And 
here I must say, I think the esliinates of the effect- 
ive force in the field have been greatly overstated. 
I propose no specific plan for adoption. I leave 
all practical measures in the hands of those to 
whoiTi ihey belong. I only pm-pose to state what 
suggests itself to my mind, as advisable. I think 
we should find it most advantageous to remain 
much as we are, excepting to occupy such ports 
on the Pacific as our fleet may reduce and maintain 
as commercial avenues to the interior. It may, 
however, l>ecome necessary to occupy San Luis 
Potosi and Zacatecas for the protection of the 



"mining operations in those States, and the agricul- 
tural districts near the city of Mexico, to command 
supplies for the army. 1 should consider an army 
of twenty-five thousand well-disciplined, eflfective 
men, the smallest number adequate to the purpose 
of maintaining positions, keeping open communi- 
cations from the coast to the interior, and dispers- 
ing the enemy's troops if they shall be reem- 
bodied; but in order to keep up such a force, we 
should require a nominal organization of at least 
forty thousand men, with full thirty thousand un- 
der pay. Without the general staflf, the twenty- 
five regiments of regulars now in service, and the 
ten new regiments proposed by the bill, will con- 
stitute such a force; and when the latter shall 
be raised and brought into the field, a portion of 
the volunteers may be discharged, if it shall be 
found prudent to do so. Many of the regiments 
are greatly reduced in numbers, and, as I under- 
stand, are anxious to return home. I doubt now 
whether there are more than twenty-five thousand 
effective men in all Mexico, though the rolls show 
over forty thousand. [General Cass, chairman 
of the Committee on Military Aflfairs, here said, 
the Adjutant General was of opinion that tliey did 
not exceed twenty-four thousand.] Some of the 
returns, on which the Adjutant General's report is 
founded, are of as early a date as August last. It 
will be recollected that last summer, when there 
was great anxiety in relation to General Scott, 
statements of the number of his troops were pub- 
lished here. They were founded on the returns in 
the Adjutant General's office — and in his official 
report of the battles before the city of Mexico, 
General Scott complained that his force had been 
greatly overstated. He said it had been " trebled" 
in these returns, if I recollect rightly, atid that the 
army had been "disgusted" by the exaggeration. 
The returns pf the army now should, in like man- 
ner, be subjected to great deductions in order to 
obtain the real effective force. If the ten regiments 
proposed by the bill are authorized, months will 
be required to raise them; they will not probably, 
as the chairman of the Committee on Military 
Affairs has stated, give many more than seven 
thousand men, and in the mean time the army will 
become cotistantly diminished by the casualties of 
service. For these reasons, and for those eiiven — 
and so al)ly given — some days since by my honora- 
ble friend from Mississippi, [Mr. Davis,] I support 
the bill. I support it for another reason, which 
has governed me froiTi the commencement of the 
war: to place at the control of the Executive the 
men and means deemed necessary to bring it to 
an honorable termination. 

As hostilities are now suspended, the chief prov- 
ince of the army will be to maintain internal tran- 
quillity, support the civil authorities in the execu- 
tion of the laws, to free the country fiom the robber 
and guerrilla bands by which it is infested, and sub- 
serve the great purposes of government hy afford- 
ingsecurity to liberty, property, and life — a security 
the Mexicans have not often fully enjoyed. The 
very exercise of these beneficent agencies will tend 
to disarm hostility towards us with the thinking 
portion of the population. It will place our armies 
in a most favoraiile contrast with hers, which have 
been scourges rather than protectors to their own 
countrymen. I would, if possible, luivc no more 
bloodshed. I would make our armies the protect- 
ors, not the enemies of the Mexican people, and 



13 



render them subservient to the eradication of abuses 
and to the institution of a better civil administra- 
tion, under Mexican magistrates, abstaining from 
all interference with the frame of the government, 
and changing in its action only what, by universal 
consent, requires to be changed. If this course 
were to be adopted and steadily pursued, I should 
earnestly hope its effect would be, at no distant 
time, to make the capital, under our protection, 
the centre of an influence which would lead to the 
reestablishment of the federative system on a du- 
rable basis, and give to that distracted country the 
settled order which is alone necessary to make her 
happy and prosperous. 

To abandon the city of Mexico would, I fear, 
put an e>id to all these prospects and hopes. That 
city is the political as well as the financial centre 
of the Republic. It is there governments have been 
instituted and deposed, armies levied, revenue sys- 
tems devised and carried into execution. So long 
as we hold it and control the adjoining districts, 1 
believe nothing but imprudence or mismanagement 
can raise up a formidable opposition to us. If we 
abandon it, all the resources of the country, which 
it commands, will again be at the control of its 
rulers, to be employed against us in the renewal 
of active hostilities. Before it was captured, en- 
ergetic movements seemed to me our true policy. 
Now that it is in our undisputed possession, our 
leading object should be to introduce better com- 
mercial and financial systems, and let them work 
out under our protection their legitimate results. 

Great qualities are necessary in him who is 
charged with the execution of these delicate and 
responsible functions. He should have prudence, 
self-control, a knowledge of civil affairs, of the 
country, of the people, and their character, and, if 
possible, their language. Established institutions, 
existing usages, sometimes prejudices, even, must 
be respected. Some of the most disastrous re- 
verses which have befallen "armies of occupation, 
have had their origin in violations of the prevailing 
customs and feelings of the people. To avoid this 
fatal error, everything depends on the discretion 
and wisdom of the directing authority. 

It may be, that all reasonable expectations will 
be disappointed; that the hostility of Mexico will 
prove unappeasable; that she will prefer the politi- 
cal disorganization, which now exists, to an ami- 
cable arrangement with us. If so, circumstances 
must dictate the course to be pursued when this 
conviction shall be forced on us. But, sir, let us 
not adopt such a conclusion hastily. Let us rely 
on the influence of more rational motives to give 
us peace. 

And now, sir, I submit whether this course had 
not better be pursued for a while, if I am right in 
supposing the temporary occupation of Mexico, 
under discreet officers, may lead to a stable peace, 
rather than to withdraw our forces, and leave the 
adjustment of difficulties to the uncertain chance 
of a restoration of a responsible government, to be 
terminated at last, perhaps, by thie renewed arbit- 
rement of arms. 

I have thus stated with frankness the views I en- 
tertain in respect to the future conduct of the war. 
Notwithstanding the anxious consideration I have 
given to the subject, they may be erroneous. It is 
a question of great difficulty, on which differences 
of opinion may Avell exist, and on which a mis- 
taken course of policy may lead to the most un- 



pleasant consequences. Whatever faith I may 
entertain in the soundness of the opinions I have 
advanced, I certainly should have more if they 
were not totally at variance with those of gentle- 
men possessing, from longer experience, much 
higher claims than myself^ to puhhc confidence. 
But I have not on this account thought proper to 
withhold them, knowing, as we do, thai, from the 
very contrariety and conflict of thought and con- 
viction, valuable deductions may sometimes be 
drawn. 

Mr. President, I feel that I have already tres- 
passed too long on the indulgence of the Senate; but 
I am unwilling to close without asking its attention 
for a very few moments to some considerations 
connected with our future growth and progress, 
and with the influence we must, in spite of our- 
selves, exert over the destinies of Mexico. They 
are no new opinions: they have been expressed 
years ago, both in public and private. 

Sir, no one who has paid a moderate degree of 
attention to the laws and elements of our increase, 
can doubt that our population is destined to spread 
itself across the American continent, filling up, 
with more or less completeness, according to at- 
tractions of soil and climate, the space that inter- 
venes between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. 
This eventual, and, perhaps, in the order of time, 
this not very distant extension of our settlements 
over a tract of country, with a diairieter, as we go 
westward, greatly disproportioned to its length, 
becomes a subject of the highest interest to us. On 
the whole extent of our northern flank, from New 
Brunswick to the point where the northern bound- 
ary of Oregon touches the Pacific, we are in con- 
tact with British colonists, having, for the most 
part, the same com^jpn origin with ourselves, but 
controlled and moulded by political influences from 
the Eastern hemisphere, if not adverse, certainly 
not decidedly friendly to us. The strongest tie 
which can be relied on to bind us to mutual offices 
of friendship and good neighborhood, is that of 
commerce; and this, as we know, is apt to run 
into rivalry, and sometimes becomes a fruitful 
source of alienation. \ 

From our northern boundary, we turn to our 
southern. What races are to border on us here, 
what is to be their social and political character, 
and what their means of annoyance? Are our 
two frontiers, only seven parallels of latitude apart 
when we pass Texas, to be flanked by settlements 
having no common bond of union with ours? Our 
whole southern line is conterminous, throughout its 
whole extent, with the territories of Mexico, a 
large portion of which is nearly unpopulated. The 
geographical area of Mexico is about 1,500,000 
square miles, and her population about 7,000,000 
souls. The whole northern and central portion, 
taking the twenty-sixth parallel of latitude as 
the dividing line, containing more than 1,000,000 
square miles, has about 650,000 inhabitants — 
about tv/o inhabitants to three square miles. The 
southern portion, with less than 500,000 square 
miles, has a population of nearly six and a half 
millions of souls, or thirteen inhabitants to one 
square mile. The aboriginal races, which occupy 
and overrun a portion of California and New Mex- 
ico, must there, as everywhere else, give way be- 
fore the advancing wave of civilization, either to be 
overwhelmed by it, or to be driven upon perpetu- 
ally contracting areas, where, from a duninution of 



14 



tlieir accustomed sources of subsistence, they mus*l 
ukiniMlely liecome extinct by force of an invincible I 
law. We see tiie operation of this law in every i 
portion of this continent. We have no power to I 
control it, if we would. It is the behest of Provi- , 
dence that idleness, and ignorance, and barbarism, 
shall give place to industry, and knowledge, and 
civilization. Tlie European and mixed races, 
Vi'hich possess Mexico, are not likely, either from 
moral or physical energy, to become formidable 
rivals or enemies. Tlie bold and courageous en- 
terprise which overran and conquered Mexico, 
appears not to have descended to the present pos- 
sessois of the soil. Either from the influence of 
climate or the admixture of races — the fusion of 
castes, to use the technical phrase — the conquer- 
ors have, in turn, become the conquered. The 
ancient Castilian energy is, in a great degree, sub- 
dued; and it has given place, with many other noble 
traits of the Spanish character, to a peculiarity 
which seems to have marked the race in that coun- 
try, under whatever combinations it is found — a 
proneness to civil discord, and a suicidal waste of 
its own strength. 

With such a territory and such a people on our 
southern border, what is to be the inevitable 
course of empire.' It needs no powers of prophecy 
to foretell. Sir, I desire to speak plainly: why 
should we not, when we are discussing the opera- 
tion of moral and physical laws, which are beyond 
our control ? As our population moves westward 
on our own territory, portions will cross our south- 
ern boundary. Seulements will be formed within 
the unoccupied and sparsely-peopled territory of 
Mexico. Uncongenial habits and tastes, dilfer- 
ences of political opinion and principle, and num- 
berless other elements of di^rsity will lead to a 
separation of these newly-formed societies from 
the ineificient government of Mexico. They will 
not endure to be held in subjection to a system, 
which neither yields them protection nor offers 
any incentive to their proper development and 
growth. They will form independent States on 
the basis of constitutions identical in all their lead- 
ing features witli our own; anU they will naturally 
seek to unite their fortunes to ours. The fate of 
California is already sealed: it can never be re- 
united to Mexico. The operation of the great 
causes, to which I have alluded, must, at no dis- 
tant day, detach the whole of northern Mexico 
from the southern portion of that republic. It is 
for the very reason that she is incapable of de- 
fending her possessions against the elements of 
disorder within and theprogressof better influences 
from without, that I desire to see the inevitable 
political change which is to be wrought in the 
condition of her northern departments, brought 
about without any improper interference on our 
part. 1 do not speak of our military movements. 
I refer to the time when our dithculties with her 
shall be healed, and when she shall be left to 
the operation of pacific influences — silent, but more 
powerful than the arm of force. For the reason 
that she is defencelsss, if for no other, I should be 
opposed to all schemes of conquest. Acquisition 
by force is the vice of arbitrary governments. I 
desire never to see it the reproach of ours. For 
the sake of the national honor, as well as the per- 
manency of our political institutions, I desire not 
to see it. The extension of free government on 
this continent can only be arrested, if arrested at 
all, by substituting war for the arts of peace. 



Leave it to itself, and nothing can pr£veat tha 
progress of our population across the continent. 
Mr. Jefferson, with his prophetic forecast, foretold 
this result forty years ago. He prophesied the 
peaceful progress of our people to the Pacific. He 
foresaw them forming new settlements, and^when 
strong enough to maintain themselves, organizing 
independent societies and governing themselves by 
constitutions and laws analagous to our own. It 
is true, he believed the area of freedom might be 
enlarged, advantageously to ourselves and others, 
without extending to the same broad limits the 
area of our jurisdiction. It was the progress and 
the triumph of great principles of political right, to 
which his philosophical mind instinctively turned 
as to the legitimate aim and boundary of our am- 
bition and desires. Since his day the public mind 
in this country has greatly outrun his anticipations 
of our progress. It looks to the extension of our 
Constitution and laws over regions which were 
formerly considered beyond our reach as integral 
portions of the same system of government. Mod- 
ern improvements have given great strength to this 
prevailing sentiment. It is possible by steam 
power, if we can succeed in making the proper ap- 
plication of it, over so broad a surface, to reach 
the Pacific ocean from Lake Michigan, or the Mis- 
sissippi, in eight or nine days — a period of time 
less than that which was required to travel from 
Boston to Philadelphia, when the Congress of the 
American colonies first assembled in the latter city. 
Under these circumstances, the extension of our 
political boundary so as to embi'ace all territory we 
may justly call our own, seems no longer to be 
considered a questionable policy. If other dis- 
tricts, not now witlnn the territories of the Union, 
shall found inde|)endent governments, and shall 
desire to unite themselves to us on terms mutually 
acceptable, it is a question which concerns only 
them and us, and in which no stranger can be per- 
mitted to intrude. When the time comes for the 
settlement of any such questions, they will doubt- 
less be considered with all the solemnity which 
belongs to propositions involving the public wel- 
fare. To those with whom the decision belongs 
let us leave them, with the assurance that the wis- 
dom which has governed and guided us so long, 
will still point out to us the path of liberty, tran- 
quillity and safety. 

One position we have assumed, and I trust it 
will be maintained with inflexible firmness — that 
no Power beyond this continent can be permitted 
to interfere with our progress, so long as there is 
on our part no violation of its own rights. I vi^ould 
resist, at the outset, as matter of the gravest 
offence, all indications of such interference. If the 
abstract right could be asserted on grounds of in- 
ternational law, there has been nothing in the 
nature of our extension, or the means by v/hich it 
has been accomplished, to warrant its application 
to us. From the formation of our Government, 
for nearly three-quarters of a century, military 
power — brute force — has had no agency in the con- 
quests we have achieved. We have overrun no 
provinces or countries abounding in wealth. Our 
capital has witnessed no triumphal entries of re- 
turning armies, bearing with them the spoils and 
trophies of conquest. Our ships have not been 
seen returning from subjugated districts, freighted 
with the tributes of an extended commerce. In 
the extension of our commercial intercourse, we 
have not, like our Anglo-Saxon mother, been seen 



15 



hewing down with the sword, with unrelenting 
and remorseless determination, every obstacle 
which opposed itself to lier progress. Our career 
thus far has been stained by no such companion- 
sltip with evil. Our conquests have been the peace- 
ful acliicvcments of enterprise and industry — the 
one leading the way into the wilderness, the other 
following and completing the acquisition by the 
formal symbols of occupancy and possession. 
They have looked to no objects beyond the con- 
version of 'uninhabited wilds into abodes of civili- 
zation and freedom. Their only arms were the 
axe and the ploughshare. The accumulations of 
wealth they havebrou^ht were all extracted from the 
bosom of theearth by the unoftending hand of labor. 
If, in the progress of our people westward, they shall 
occupy ten-itories not our own, but to become ours 
by amicable arrangements with the governments 
to which they belong, which of the nations of the 
earth shall venture to stand foi-th, in the face of 
the civilized world, and call on us to pause in this 
great work of human improvement ? It is as much 
the interest of Europe as it is ours, that we should 
be pei-mittcd to follow undisturbed the path which, 
in the allotment of national fortunes, we seem ap- 
pointed to tread. Our country has long been a 
refuge for those who desire a larger liberty than 
they enjoy under their own rulers. It is a*n outlet 
for the political disaffection of the Old World — 
for social elements which might there liave be- 
come sources of asjitation, but which are here si- 
lently and tranquilly incorporated into our system, 
ceasing to be principles of disturbance as they at- 
tain tlie greater freedom, which was the object of 
their separation from less congenial combinations 
in other quarters of the globe. Nay, more; it is 
into the vast reservoir of the western wilderness, 
teeming with fruitfulness and fertility, that Europe 
is constantly pouring, under our protection, her 
human surplusses, unable to draw from her own 
bosom the elements of their support and repro- 
duction. She is literally going along with us in 
our march to prosperity and power, to share with 
us its triumphs and its fruits. Happily, this con- 
tinent is not a legitimate theatre for the politi- 
cal arrangements of the sovereigns of the eastern 
hemisphere. Their armies may range, undis- 
turbed by us, over the plains of Europe, Asia, 
and Africa, dethroning monarchs, partitioning 
kingdoms, and subverting republics, as interest or 
caprice may dictate. But political justice demands 
that in one quarter of the globe self-government, 
freedom, the art.s of peace, shall be permitted to 
work out, unmolested, the great purposes of hu- 
man civilization 

Air. President, I trust there will be nothing in 
the final adjustment of our difficulties witli Mexico 
to impair, in any degree, the moral of our example 
in the past. Our course, heretofore, has been one 
of perpetual exertion to bring about an amicable 
arrangement with her. I trust we shall persevere 
in the same course of conduct, whatever unwilling- 
ness she may exhibit to come to terms. Enter- 
taining the opinions which I have expressed, I 
naturally feel a deep solicitude, as an American 
citizen, that our public conduct should cotnport 
with the dignity of the part we seem destined to 
perform in tli^e greiat drapia of international politics. 
I desiie to see our gooil name unsuMied, and tJie 
character we have gained for moderation, justice, 
and scrupulousness in the discharge of our na- 
tional obligations, maintained unimpaired. In 



these, let us be assured, our great strength consists: 
for it is these which makes us strong in the opinion 
of mankind. 

In what I have said concerning the progress of 
our people over the unpopulated regions west of 
us, and in respect to our responsibilities as a nation, 
I trust I shall have incurred no imputation of in- 
consistency. On the contrary, I trust I shall be 
considered consistent in all I have said. I regard 
our extension, as I have endeavored to, fore- 
shadow it, to be the inevitable result of causes, the 
operation of which it is not in our power to arrest. 
At the same time, 1 hold it to be our sacred duty 
to see that it is not encouraged or promoted by 
improper means. Wliile I shoulJ consider it the 
part of weakness to shrink from extension, under 
the apprehension that it might bring with it the 
elements of discord and disunion, as our political 
boundaries are enlarged, I should hold it to be the 
part of folly and dishonor to attempt to accelerate 
it by agencies incompatible with our obligations 
to other nations. It is the dictate of wisdom and 
of duty to submit ourselves to the ojieration of the 
great causes which are at work, and wliich will 
work on in spite of us, in carrying civilization and 
freedom across the American continent. 

In advocating a continued occupation of the 
cities and territory we have acquired in Mexico, 
until she shall assent to reasonable terms: of peace, 
I trust also that I shall be deemed consistent with 
myself. Deprecating war as the greatest o' ca- 
lamities, especially for us, I desire to see this W3.r 
brought to a close at the earliest practicable day. 
I am in favor of whatever measures are most likely 
to accomplish this desirable end. I am opposed 
to an abandonment of our position: 

1st. Because I believe it would open a field of ^ 
domestic dissension in Mexico, which might be 
fatal to her existence as an indejiendent state, or 
make her take refuge in the arms of despotism; 

2d. Because it might lead to external interference 
in her affairs of the most dangerous tendency both 
to her and us; and 

3d. Because I fear that we should only gain a 
temporary suspension of hostilities, to be renewed - 
undergreatdisad vantages to us'and with every pros- 
pect of a longer and more sanguinary contest. 

Mr. President, it is this last consideration, which 
weighs most heavily upon my own mind. I hold 
it to be indispensable to the public welfare, under 
all its aspects, that we should have, at the termi- 
nation of this contest, a solid and stable peace. 
Unpromising as the condition of things seems at 
the present moment, my hope still is, that firmness 
tempered with prudence, will give us, not a mere 
outward pacification with secret irritation rankling 
within, but substantial concord and friendship, 
which shall leave no wound unhealed. And, sir, 
we should be satisfied with nothing short of an 
accommodation of dilTerences which will enable 
the country with confidence to lay aside its armor, 
and to resume the |)eaceful pursuits to which, by 
the inexorable law of our condition, we must look 
for prosperity and safety. 

My advice, then, (if I may presume to advise,) 
is, to stand firm, holding ourselves ready at all 
times to make a peace, and carrying into oui- nego- 
tiations for that purpose a determination to cement 
a future good understanding-with our adversary, 
by an adjustment of our differences on terms of jus- 
tice, moderation, and magnanimity. 



5504 



"f 









. . « A 






<^ *'.7 






"'bv^ 



r * 



^^ ^ , 

Ci 'o. » • A 

.0' V-^'-'/' V"^"/ %*'-'%**' 






<j. ■ •• ^^ ... ^^^ 

1. ^0^ 










(1, vP 



















.'^ ... 



^^ •: 




"^* <^^ 






V* •J*>L'* <^ 









A<1 



• «? <^, o^ 



.4q* 









^/ ^^ -% • 






-^^4^' 



77^* *0^ ^^ '»•* 






^"^ "*".0^\.--V -^o 



^ A %^ ' . . 



aO V " • ' - • /?»^ , , <=^ "" J^ r^^ "" '^ 















'^bV^ 




VI- -3 







'i.k\ c°^i^^^^o /\.^:A ^'*:^^'> 




V .•i:;^'* '«^^ 



